Pursuant to subsection 79.2(2) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House a report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer entitled “The Government’s Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates 2018-19”.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “A Study on the Status of Antimicrobial Resistance in Canada and Related Recommendations”.

The sense of urgency with respect to this issue was a really big surprise to me. We heard from professionals in the health care industry about the ineffectiveness of antibiotics and the seriousness of this issue, and that unless something is done it will harm a lot of the great work that has been done in research in the health industry.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibiting food and beverage marketing directed at children).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

This was an interesting study. Members of all parties shared their expertise on this issue, and we feel we have improved the bill somewhat.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to introduce a new bill today. Bill C-401 will lower the voting age in Canada and create a system in which young people can vote once they turn 16.

The objective of this legislation is to increase voter turnout among young people in Canada. Across a number of western democracies, voter turnout is the weakest in the demographic where voting matters the most, the people on whose lives the decisions will have the most impact. Young people in Canada, ages 18 to 24, vote the least. Research has shown that if they start voting at a younger age they will continue voting longer. If someone has not started voting before the age of 25, that individual will not start voting at 30. The evidence is clear.

The goal of this amendment to the Canada Elections Act is to give young people the right to vote at the age of 16, knowing that in the context of still being in high school, still being at home, and being in their own community, they are more likely to vote.

I hope the House will look on this bill favourably. Some small adjustments will need to be made based on Bill C-76, which was tabled in the House yesterday.

The first petition relates to a national palliative care strategy. It highlights that 70% of Canadians who need end-of-life palliative care do not have access to it. The petition also points out that it was this Parliament's decision, passed unanimously, to create a national palliative care strategy in support of Bill C-277.

The petitioners call on every member in Parliament to support palliative care and respect the international definition of palliative care by the World Health Organization that palliative care neither postpones nor hastens death.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to conscience protection. It highlights that coercion, intimidation, or other forms of pressure intended to force physicians or health institutions to become parties to assisted suicide or euthanasia are a violation of the fundamental freedom of conscience.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enshrine in the Criminal Code of Canada the protection of conscience for physicians, health care professionals, and institutions from coercion and/or intimidation.

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from a group of Canadians in support of postal banking. We know that nearly two million Canadians desperately need an alternative to payday lenders, because these predators are preying upon people with crippling lending rates that affect the poor, marginalized, rural, and indigenous communities the most.

We have 3,800 Canada Post outlets already in rural areas where there are few or no banks. Canada Post has the infrastructure to make a rapid transition that would include postal banking. Therefore, the petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to enact my motion, Motion No. 166, and create a committee to study and propose a plan for postal banking under the Canada Post Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of Canadians who are very sad that the Canadian volunteer medal has ceased to exist. They are petitioning the government to create and issue a new Canadian military volunteer service medal to be designated the Canadian military volunteer service medal for volunteer service by Canadians in the regular forces, the reserves, the cadet corps, and support staff who have completed 365 days of uninterrupted honourable duty for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to table petitions regarding the Algoma passenger train, which was really the only safe, affordable, all-season access into the Algoma wilderness rail corridor for over 100 years. The loss of this train has resulted in substantial hardships for residents, businesses, communities, and passengers. Alternate ways of access are not reliable, safe, and year-round, or are non-existent. There are only a few industrial roads, which are not very well maintained, for people to access some of their properties. The passenger train was not only the best thing that was helping these individuals, but it was also an environmentally responsible way to travel.

The petitioners ask that the Algoma passenger train be put back into service in order to ensure the mission of Transport Canada, which is to serve the public interest through promotion of a safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible transportation system in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition today calling upon all members of the House to support Motion No. 110 in order to show better support and compassion for parents who have suffered the loss of a pregnancy or an infant child. These are petitioners from Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and all across Canada. They were quite disappointed to hear the government indicate, during debate on the motion, that it felt there was not enough time to study an issue as important as this one. They believe the government should be standing shoulder to shoulder with these families and showing support and compassion for them, not telling them it does not have time to deal with their issues.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition from residents of Jonquière regarding automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement. The federal government recently announced a new process to automatically enrol seniors for the guaranteed income supplement, but automatic enrolment will not apply to all eligible individuals when they turn 64. We know this program is important for low-income seniors who receive old age security. The extra income enables them to remain in their homes, receive additional care, and access a number of services. I am honoured to present this petition about automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by constituents from Dufferin—Caledon. They call upon Parliament to encourage the Canadian government to work with the Government of Israel to facilitate the completion of sponsorship applications of asylum seekers from Africa so they can immigrate to Canada as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to table another petition that relates to the one I tabled yesterday. The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to the gap between the rich and poor, which is growing faster in Canada than in most developed countries. The richest 100 Canadians have the same wealth as the 10 million poorest Canadians combined. The petition therefore calls on the government to implement a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour, ensure that large corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and put an end to unfair trade agreements that result in the loss of jobs and lower wages.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to table a petition on the subject of human rights, specifically with regard to human rights in China.

The petitioners ask the government and the Parliament of Canada to take note of the persecution of practitioners of the non-violent practice of Falun Dafa and Falun Gong. These practitioners are subjected to political persecution, jail, and unacceptable conditions. The petitioners ask for Canada to pressure the People's Republic of China to respect human rights.

That, given the Liberal government made a specific campaign promise to Canadians that "government data and information should be open by default, in formats that are modern and easy to use", the House hereby order that all documents be produced in their original and uncensored form indicating how much the federal carbon tax proposed in Budget 2018 will cost Canadian families in order to put an end to the carbon tax cover-up.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

As members know, the saga of the carbon tax cover-up has been ongoing now for several years, but today there are new developments. Just moments ago in the finance committee, we were studying Bill C-74, the government's budget implementation act, 200 pages of which are dedicated to the creation of a national carbon tax. Before the committee were officials from the environment and finance departments. I asked specifically whether or not either of those departments had modelled how much that tax would cost the average Canadian family. The assistant deputy minister of finance confirmed that in fact the government has modelled that information. In other words, the government knows the price tag but it is covering it up, and that, in essence, is the carbon tax cover-up.

Now that I have given today's news, I will lay out the chronology of events.

In late 2015, the Liberal government was elected. It had promised to institute a new carbon tax. Soon after that, I filed what is called an access to information request asking the government what such a tax would cost families in varying income groups. What would it cost middle-class people? What would it cost people below the poverty line?

The government came back with a big pile of documents, which the member for Barrie—Innisfil will be mentioning in his speech. One of these documents indicates, “This memo focuses on the potential impact of a carbon price on households' consumption expenditures across the income distribution.” The key findings are blacked out.

I will translate this government-speak into plain English. The memo focused on the potential impact of a carbon price on households' consumption. This means that the memo calculates what the tax will cost people when they buy things. It mentions “across the income distribution”, which means that the table which is blacked out tells us what people would pay based on the incomes they earn.

We know that the share of a family's budget is largely determined by how much the family makes. For example, Statistics Canada has shown that poor families spend about a third more on the goods that the carbon tax will apply to than do rich households, because if one is extremely wealthy, then heat, electricity, groceries, while they still cost the same or even a little more than they do for a low-income household, they are a smaller share of the family's budget. This is why it is important to know how much people in various income levels will pay with this new tax.

We know that taxes of this nature are regressive, because they take a larger share of household income from people who have less money. Those with the least disproportionately pay the most. As a result, such taxes can have the effect of actually widening the gap between rich and poor. The government has claimed that it wants to reduce that gap, but it is imposing a tax which is known to do precisely the opposite.

Then we come to the use of the revenues. What is the government going to use the money for when it collects it?

In Ontario, the Wynne government has given the blueprint. For example, Ontario has used the money to provide $15,000 in rebates to millionaires who buy electric Mercedes and Teslas. This is an example of a tax applied to working-class and low-income people which is then fed to the wealthiest 1% who can afford to drive the most elite vehicles. In that same province, the government has used the revenues to subsidize companies that would otherwise be money losing. They have, for example, increased hydroelectricity rates by paying these companies that offer so-called solar and wind power onto the grid at 90¢ per kilowatt hour when that kilowatt hour is worth about 2.5¢.

The effect of that is to drive up the electricity costs of everyday Ontarians, while bolstering the profits of well-connected Bay Street insiders, who successfully conclude those inflated contracts with the Government of Ontario. In Ontario the inflation of electricity prices is going to constitute a cost of about $170 billion over 25 years, according to the province's auditor general, which will make it the biggest wealth transfer from the working poor to the super rich in Canadian history. That is a form of redistribution that is common among regimes that impose schemes like the one the government has embedded in its budget implementation legislation, all of which reminds us that we should as Canadian parliamentarians know how much this tax will cost every household.

The government says that it cannot reveal that information for two reasons. First, it says that, for example, the table that I referred to earlier, is not relevant because it is a couple of years old and so much has changed.

While the fundamental structure of the Canadian economy has changed, the amount and share that people spend on heating their homes, driving their cars, and feeding their families has not fundamentally changed in two years. That being said, if the government thinks it is so irrelevant, why not just release it? Why not just show the numbers to Canadians and then convince them that those numbers are completely irrelevant? Does the government not trust Canadians to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information? If it is obviously just a bunch of old numbers that have collected cobwebs over many months and years, then surely Canadians will just disregard it.

However, if the information in this table is based on a model of taxation that is in the current budget, then Canadians might, by contrast, say, “Wait a second. This is relevant. It is going to cost me a lot of money.” Then they may judge the government negatively for those costs. Maybe that is the real reason the government does not want to release the numbers.

The second reason the government is giving is it claims that this tax will be revenue neutral, that Canadians will get back the money somehow. It is the old trickle-down economics of socialist governments that it will take the money away from the working class and give it to the politicians. It will trickle down to the bureaucracy, and then it will trickle further down to the companies and interest groups that get the grants funded by those taxes, and eventually a few drops will trickle back down to the people who earned the money in the first place. This is the trickle-down government that we always see when parties of the far left take office.

If this is true, let us pretend for a moment that the government is telling the truth and that it plans to give all the money right back to the people who paid the tax in the first place. How can it prove that is the case if it will not tell us how much those same people will pay? We cannot judge whether the cost has been neutralized for an average family unless we know what that cost is, but the government will not tell us, which suggests that the government has a trick up its sleeve, that it wants this to be a money raiser, a cash grab, an issue of cold, hard cash for politicians to spend.

Canadians have seen this before in every province where this scheme has been implemented. In every single one, the governments have won and the taxpayers have lost. The politicians have had more money to spend and the individual households have had less money left in their pockets. That is the reality we have seen so far.

As Conservatives, we are the voice of the taxpayer, and we will fight every day to ensure that the government is not allowed to bring in another sneaky tax grab targeted at the middle class, and those working hard to join it. Rather, we will fight for transparency to end the carbon tax cover-up, and to leave money in the pockets of the people who earned it.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his conviction. The level of hypocrisy in his speech, though, is one which I have not seen in quite some time. He talks about the fact that he is here to protect the taxpayers and he is looking out to make sure that they do not have to pay more.

Where was he when Toronto was paying billions of dollars to take care of the record flooding that it experienced? Where was he when Alberta had the record flooding that inundated Calgary and cost the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars? Where was he when in Quebec last year there were hundreds of millions of dollars in damages due to record flooding?

Where is his plan to protect the taxpayers from the effects of climate change?

Madam Speaker, I notice the member warns that if we do not pay his carbon tax, the Canadian people will be besieged by floods and plagues that will descend upon them. He offered precisely no evidence that the carbon tax as it is designed would prevent any of that. Rather, the same people who have suffered because of those natural disasters that nature has bestowed upon them would further suffer with the higher taxes the government would pile on to those same families.

I think he mentioned having family in High River. I certainly have great sympathy for the people who suffered there. I encourage him to go to High River and try to sell this carbon tax to the people there who have suffered because his government has blocked the development of the oil and gas sector and failed to support pipeline development across the country.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I often have heated debates. I want to ask him a question about the cost of inaction on climate change. Many people talk about the cost for individuals and families in Canada, but that is just part of the reality. The other part is that doing nothing to address climate change will lead to more natural disasters, extreme weather, flooding, forest fires, droughts, and lower agricultural production. All the studies done have shown the negative impact on our economy if we continue in the same direction and do nothing about climate change.

Why do the Conservatives not care about the cost of inaction on climate change?

Madam Speaker, I have never understood how increasing the size of government would fix the problems that my hon. colleague has raised. If the purpose of this tax was to combat climate change, every associated cost would not be added to the government's budget. However, that is exactly what the government is trying to do. It is trying to raise more revenue, but will not give it back in tax cuts. In fact, the government has done nothing to reduce other taxes. If the government adds this to its revenue, then we know that its true motivation is in fact to build up its coffers and not combat climate change.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Carleton for sharing his time with me. The speech would be easy if I just said what he said, but I want to take a slightly different approach. Again, I will remind the House why we are here today. We are talking about a motion that deals with the carbon tax cover-up. The motion itself reads:

That, given the Liberal government made a specific campaign promise to Canadians that “government data and information should be open by default, in formats that are modern and easy to use”, the House hereby order that all documents be produced in their original and uncensored form indicating how much the federal carbon tax proposed in Budget 2018 will cost Canadian families in order to put an end to the carbon tax cover-up.

The hon. member for Carleton already spoke about the fact that almost immediately after the last election he filed an access to information request to finance department officials asking, quite simply, how much the carbon tax was going to cost Canadian families, and how much emissions would be reduced.

They were great questions. The answer he received back was blacked out. We are talking about a government and a Prime Minister who promised in the last election that they were going to be more open and transparent than any other government in the history of the world.

Even to this day, Liberals stand up in this House and refuse to answer questions that have been asked at least 60 or 70 times: How much is the carbon tax going to cost Canadian families, and how much will it reduce emissions? This transparent and open government not only provides a document that is completely blacked out, but it stands in this House and refuses to answer.

Instead, it puts out buzzwords like “the environment and the economy go hand in hand” and “I have three children, and it is going to cost them in the future”. Those are not the answers Canadians are looking for. If the government truly wants Canadians to buy into its carbon reduction plan, at a minimum it should be telling Canadians how much it costs.

Now, there are some numbers that are known. For example, it is going to cause the price of gasoline to go up by 11¢ a litre. We know it is going to cost more to heat our homes, in excess of $200. However, there are additional costs associated with this, and the government is refusing to tell Canadians what they are. I was watching finance department officials this morning being questioned again by the hon. member for Carleton. They know the answer but refuse to give it. They were like deer in the headlights this morning, and it was quite a spectacle to see.

I am not blaming the bureaucrats. They are spewing out government talking points and policy, but at a minimum we should know how much it is going to cost. As the hon. member for Carleton said, this will disproportionately affect lower-income Canadians. We know that typically when taxes happen in the manner in which the government is proposing, they disproportionately affect lower-income Canadians. We want to know, for them, for middle-class Canadians, how much this is going to cost. This is why we are spending a whole day in Parliament doing that.

Now, we know it is not going to cost the Prime Minister, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, or the Minister of Finance anything, because they make significant salaries, have cars driven for them, fly around all over the world on airplanes, and get their meals paid for. The government and senior officials in government are not going to be paying anything for a carbon tax, but again it is middle-class and lower-middle-class Canadians who are disproportionately going to be affected by this. All we are asking for is to know how much it is going to cost them.

The significance of this for middle- to lower-class Canadians is the impact it is going to have on their earning potential and their wage gains, for example in the case of union members. Last week, I was with members of the Canadian Police Association, and I talked to them specifically about the carbon tax. I mentioned it to the International Association of Fire Fighters. Fiscal government policy is directly having an impact on lower- and middle-class Canadians, because it is going to end up costing them more. Any wage gains they make at the bargaining table will be taken right back by the government with respect to carbon tax increases.

Add to that the cost of everyday goods, including those at the grocery store. Most people understand that the cost of things is already going up disproportionately. When we start adding taxes to the delivery of those goods and services, it is lower- and middle-class Canadians who are going to be paying more.

It will not be the Prime Minister, it will not be the Minister of Environment, nor will it be the Minister of Finance. They are going to do okay by raising carbon taxes. In fact, I would suggest they are going to do more than okay, because they are going to be able to raise funds to deal with their insatiable appetite to spend money and give money to their pet globalist projects around the world.

It should come as no surprise that we are in this position. Again, when I stand up in this House, I often reference the situation in Ontario and the fact that electricity rates are significantly high because of the failed green energy policy, the fact that consumers are again disproportionately affected by that, and the fact that lower- and middle-income Canadians are having to pay more because of that failed green energy policy in Ontario.

The common denominator in all of this goes back to the man who lurks in the shadows of the PMO, who comes up with these bright ideas that somehow impact negatively not just Ontarians but all Canadians, and that is Gerald Butts. He is the architect of the failed Green Energy Act and the man who is pushing this carbon tax agenda within the PMO. It will be Canadians who pay the price.

I know what I speak of, because I am a resident of Ontario, and we continue to pay the price. The people I represent in Barrie—Innisfil pay the price. They will continue to pay the price, because of carbon taxes and the impact they are going to have on them.

The government has not even modelled the price tag on this. The Liberals know what the answer to the question is, and that is why we are simply asking those questions. We want to know. Canadians want to know. If Canadians are going to buy into a government policy that increases the amount of tax they are going to pay, they deserve to know what the cost of that is going to be. Furthermore, they deserve to know what the reduction in those emissions is going to be. It is a fair question to ask.

This is why, again, we are spending all day talking about this. We want the answer. Canadians deserve to know the answer to the question. On the impact on the economy, we already heard last week that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said it is going to affect our GDP to the tune of $10 billion. In fact, there have been some suggestions that the actual cost is going to be $35 billion by 2022. Those are staggering amounts.

We are dealing with competitiveness issues with the United States, which is seemingly going in a different direction with taxes and regulations, yet here is Canada, implementing and imposing a job-killing carbon tax on businesses that are looking to succeed.

The government talks about attracting talent, but if there are no businesses here to attract that talent to, how can we reasonably expect to be competitive in a global marketplace? We have already seen, by last count, close to $84 billion of capital flee this country because of an assault by the government on our natural resource sector.

By adding a carbon tax to that, and by adding a carbon tax for middle-class and lower-income Canadians, who again are going to be disproportionately negatively affected by this, the Liberals will do damage to our economy, and they will also make it much more expensive for Canadians to live.

All we are asking for is the information. The government knows the information. The finance department knows the information. Canadians need to know and understand what it is going to cost them and what they are getting into by the Liberal government's proposed carbon tax. It is time for the government to stop covering it up.

Opposition Motion—Production of Documents on the Carbon TaxBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Spadina—Fort York
Ontario

Liberal

Adam VaughanLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Madam Speaker, I know the member represents a riding north of the city in which I represent a riding, and I know that all-day GO Transit train service to Barrie has been one of the big achievements in the last few years of the Wynne government in Ontario. In fact, that government has rebuilt the GO Transit system to the point where we do not have daily cancellations and breakdowns on the train system. The largest investment in rail in the world is taking place right now in the GTA. It has delivered all-day service to the community that the member represents, which unlocks all sorts of economic opportunities in his community and also gives people an alternative to driving.

The investment in GO Transit is partially financed out of this shifting of perspective, where we tax pollution and then reinvest into options where we give people methods of transportation around the GTA that cut greenhouse gas emissions. We are also moving toward electrification. I know the member supports that project, so I am just curious about how he would pay for it if he were not going to pay for it with taxes.

The document the member wants uncovered was produced by the Conservatives. Why did he not just read it and release it when he was in government?